that I worship a different Christ and/or a different Holy Trinity than what Orthodox Christians worship.

This isn't really accurate. There is no other Christ or Holy Trinity to worship. You are directing your worship towards the Holy Trinity that you see in the Bible. But because you do not properly understand the Holy Trinity and are not mystically initiated in Orthodox Christianity you are not worshiping "in Spirit and Truth".

Is this actually the consensus amongst Orthodox Christians that all the non-Orthodox (heterodox) Christians are actually worshiping a false god rather than the One True God simply by having some doctrinal misunderstandings, or is this only the view of the minority that wish to be polemical?

I doubt there is a consensus. There are many teachings which exist in the Orthodox Church which lack consensus. Often they are regarded as the majority teaching of the Fathers without, often without contradiction. Often they are regarded as the logical implication of the explicit Tradition. So just because there is not a complete and explicit consensus does not mean that the teaching is not the Orthodox teaching.

Again, I'd like to clarify that speaking of you worshiping a false god needs some major clarifications. Like I said, there really is no such thing as a false god, in the sense that no other deity actually exists other than God. Also, like I said, unlike heathens your worship is actually directed toward the personality in the Bible that we understand to be the Holy Trinity. So in this sense you are directing your worship towards the True God. The only issue is that you have perverted the teaching of the nature of God so that you conceive of a mutation of the True God.

Also, like I said before, it's not just an issue of the doctrinal misunderstandings, but also that you are not mystically initiated into the Church. Worshiping "in Spirit and Truth" appears in the Bible to be a Pentecostal charism of the Church.

If this is the Orthodox view, what is the fate of most of the heterodox if they remain heterodox? Are they more than likely going to hell or is it more likely that God will extend His mercy to them despite their flawed belief?

I don't think we can speculate whether the heterodox are more or less likely to go to Gehenna. How one will be judged is really about whether one loves God and His Creation. It is possible for a condition towards loving God to be indicated by love for His Creation. Of course being judged on love for God logically indicates that a heathen must accept Him when they finally realize Him for who He is. But I have a strong belief that there are many heathens who are disposed towards love for God and that that love will not be realized until they convert at the very last moment at the Second Coming.

(with your church of course being FAR closer than the Nestorians to getting it right)

I don't know where you get that idea. Classical Nestorianism only really has one dogmatic error, in regarding Christ as two subsistences, whereas Romanism contains many. On top of that, Romanism contains a Triadological error, whereas Nestorianism does not (only a Christological error), which would seem to pervert their conception of God more.

No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...

Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person. Cf. the quotes George provided. And these are not isolated. I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life. The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so." Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son. You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

They are hypostases who differ in nothing from each other regarding their nature.

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

No...Peter...no...That's not what they meant...Not wholesale but that catechesis in the Catholic Church has failed for many...That was the point. I think...

I don't think its a failure of catechesis in Catholicism. I think it is the successful catechesis of erroneous doctrine.So successful in fact, that even you, an Eastern Catholic, attempts to justify this error by stating that there is a difference in magnitude between the relationship of the First and Second Persons of the Trinity as compared to the other relationships:

But that relationship between the Father and the Son is real and it is unique for it is not shared between or among the Persons of the Trinity in anything approaching the same magnitude.

The difference, though we cannot know how so magnitude has little meaning here, is Scriptural. There is a relationship between the Father and the Son that has been revealed to us and that relationship is unique. It is not in evidence between the Father and the Holy Spirit, nor is it in evidence between the Son and the Holy Spirit.

No. Modes of relation is why they exist. They are not themselves modes of relation.

No. Modes of relation are our pitifully inadequate borrowings from philosophy which we use to attempt to explain to one another what the Trinity has revealed to us about Himself in Scripture and Tradition...so that WE do not get confused.

I wrote that, I didn't quote it. It is, doubtlessly, a woefully inadequate summary of Aquinas' argument.

And the Gospels were written by divine inspiration, so obviously neither what I wrote nor what Aquinas wrote is on par with the gospels. But I'll take the calm and level headed reason of Aquinas as a better tool for understanding them than Catholics and Orthodox needlessly shouting 'heretic!' at one another. There is no necessary contradiction between the two creeds, and Aquinas' parsing of the Trinity demonstrates that beautifully.

Agreed. And you did a very nice job BTW. I've been thinking about it trying to see if it can be made even more accessible by further explaining modes of relation but I've not had time to work something out clearly that does not simply repeat what I have been saying in less elegant form.

The Son and the Spirit are simply modes of relation, and the Spirit can be said to be proceed from both Father and Son because it can only be distinguished by opposite relation from Father and Son collectively (One must have knowledge of a thing in order to love it), and the only way to distinguish within a single Essence is by opposite relation. It can also be said to proceed from the Father through the Son (It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known), or to proceed from the Father simply (knowledge and desire are both rooted in inaccessible being). None of the three formulations are incorrect. Or at least that's Aquinas' position, and I share it.

Saint Gregory the Theologian who died about 388 AD is an erudite representative of the holy Catholic Church Fathers on the subject of the origins of the three Persons of the Trinity.

You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how" [Orat XX, 2] "You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]

Catholics believe that Sanctifying Grace is created.Orthodox believe that Grace is uncreated and is part of the Divine Energies of God.

If Grace is a participation in the Divine Life of God, then it must be uncreated and part of God's Divine Energies.Through theosis, we are transformed through Grace and become like God, not in God's Essence, but through His Divine Energies.

This is a profound difference.

I am so surprised that you were not taught better than this Maria. It is no wonder you left the Church. You never even got a good chance to know it in reality.

What you have said here is nothing but superficial inaccuracies. It is very unfortunate and a scandal within the Catholic Church that ANYONE would be so poorly taught.

In Maria's defence I have to say that what she describes is what we were taught in the 1960s. When I converted to Orthodoxy and learnt of theosis and uncreated grace it was poles away from what I had been taught, out of Tanquery, etc.

The Son and the Spirit are simply modes of relation, and the Spirit can be said to be proceed from both Father and Son because it can only be distinguished by opposite relation from Father and Son collectively (One must have knowledge of a thing in order to love it), and the only way to distinguish within a single Essence is by opposite relation. It can also be said to proceed from the Father through the Son (It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known), or to proceed from the Father simply (knowledge and desire are both rooted in inaccessible being). None of the three formulations are incorrect. Or at least that's Aquinas' position, and I share it.

Saint Gregory the Theologian who died about 388 AD is an erudite representative of the holy Catholic Church Fathers on the subject of the origins of the three Persons of the Trinity.

You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how" [Orat XX, 2] "You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]

In my opinion the Western world has been long stricken with the madness against which Saint Gregory cautions.

Again this warning is for those obsessed with knowing and arguing and paying little heed to being and becoming holy as the Father is holy. Idle chatter is not the same as prayerful discourse. Some of my deepest contemplative moments have come in opening up my heart to the Trinity...meditating on the Scriptures that teach us and enliven our faith. If one cannot explain and defend the faith then one is open, wide open, to the demonic. There is an example to be made in the process of learning the faith. That is why St. Paul warned against the desire to teach for teaching bears not only a great responsibility but there is also exacted a great price for the claim alone. I have never found it difficult to determine those who are teaching the faith as a pupil of the Holy Spirit and those who teach the faith as a matter of pride and gnosis.

It speaks of the "rediscovery" of uncreated grace in the West commencing in the late 1930s and the 1940s with the writings of the eminent Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago.

The Son and the Spirit are simply modes of relation, and the Spirit can be said to be proceed from both Father and Son because it can only be distinguished by opposite relation from Father and Son collectively (One must have knowledge of a thing in order to love it), and the only way to distinguish within a single Essence is by opposite relation. It can also be said to proceed from the Father through the Son (It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known), or to proceed from the Father simply (knowledge and desire are both rooted in inaccessible being). None of the three formulations are incorrect. Or at least that's Aquinas' position, and I share it.

Saint Gregory the Theologian who died about 388 AD is an erudite representative of the holy Catholic Church Fathers on the subject of the origins of the three Persons of the Trinity.

You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how" [Orat XX, 2] "You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]

In my opinion the Western world has been long stricken with the madness against which Saint Gregory cautions.

Again this warning is for those obsessed with knowing and arguing and paying little heed to being and becoming holy as the Father is holy. Idle chatter is not the same as prayerful discourse. Some of my deepest contemplative moments have come in opening up my heart to the Trinity...meditating on the Scriptures that teach us and enliven our faith. If one cannot explain and defend the faith then one is open, wide open, to the demonic. There is an example to be made in the process of learning the faith. That is why St. Paul warned against the desire to teach for teaching bears not only a great responsibility but there is also exacted a great price for the claim alone. I have never found it difficult to determine those who are teaching the faith as a pupil of the Holy Spirit and those who teach the faith as a matter of pride and gnosis.

Wow! A few insults in there. Sorry to offend you! I am sorry if I have offended your holiness and your own personal experiences of the Trinity, but I will take Saint Gregory and the ancient teaching of my Church any day as far more reliable than the musings of a Roman Catholic lady in America.

The Son and the Spirit are simply modes of relation, and the Spirit can be said to be proceed from both Father and Son because it can only be distinguished by opposite relation from Father and Son collectively (One must have knowledge of a thing in order to love it), and the only way to distinguish within a single Essence is by opposite relation. It can also be said to proceed from the Father through the Son (It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known), or to proceed from the Father simply (knowledge and desire are both rooted in inaccessible being). None of the three formulations are incorrect. Or at least that's Aquinas' position, and I share it.

Saint Gregory the Theologian who died about 388 AD is an erudite representative of the holy Catholic Church Fathers on the subject of the origins of the three Persons of the Trinity.

You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how" [Orat XX, 2] "You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]

In my opinion the Western world has been long stricken with the madness against which Saint Gregory cautions.

Again this warning is for those obsessed with knowing and arguing and paying little heed to being and becoming holy as the Father is holy. Idle chatter is not the same as prayerful discourse. Some of my deepest contemplative moments have come in opening up my heart to the Trinity...meditating on the Scriptures that teach us and enliven our faith. If one cannot explain and defend the faith then one is open, wide open, to the demonic. There is an example to be made in the process of learning the faith. That is why St. Paul warned against the desire to teach for teaching bears not only a great responsibility but there is also exacted a great price for the claim alone. I have never found it difficult to determine those who are teaching the faith as a pupil of the Holy Spirit and those who teach the faith as a matter of pride and gnosis.

Wow! A few insults in there. Sorry to offend you! I am sorry if I have offended your holiness and your own personal experiences of the Trinity, but I will take Saint Gregory and the ancient teaching of my Church any day as far more reliable than the musings of a Roman Catholic lady in America.

Wow!! Guess I won't open up to you again. Thought you might understand. Should have known you would take offense at anything I said contrary to your teaching.

You know it is your teaching. There are other texts that you could have included in your teaching, including taste and see in St. Paul, that suggest that we should prayerfully explore the Glories of the Lord.

But hey!!...I won't bother sharing that part of my life with you again. It is obviously not your cuppa tea.

It speaks of the "rediscovery" of uncreated grace in the West commencing in the late 1930s and the 1940s with the writings of the eminent Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago.

Yea! They "rediscovered" it after about 200 years of Irish Jansenism.

And as I have noted before there were others in the Catholic Church who never "lost" it...reformed Carmel never lost it...and the Dominicans never lost it...

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

The word 'logos' means 'Principle of order and knowledge' in the Greek of the day.

Since God is one simple divine essence, distinguishing marks within Him are only by opposite modes of relation. For example, the Father has a relation to the Son, and He has a relation to the Spirit. However, He does not have opposite relations to these. If He did, the Father would be two persons, whereas He is one person. He has the same mode of relation to the Son as He has to the Spirit: That both the Son and the Spirit are related to Him as being produced by Him.

Three distinguishing marks characterize any act of production: Efficient cause (that which produces), material cause (the matter out of which the product is produced), and formal term (the form it takes upon production).

The Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from one another by material cause, because they have no matter. Nor are they distinguished from one another by formal term, because they have the same form: The Divine Essence. Therefore, they are distinguished by efficient cause. Both are produced by the Father, so in order to be distinguished by efficient cause one of them must be produced by both the Father and another person of the Trinity.

There are three modes of relation within a living being: The sensible principle, by which matter act upon it, The appetitive principle, by which it is drawn towards its natural good, and the rational principle, by which it produces a similitude in the mind of being (this similitude being knowledge).

God has no sensible principle, because matter cannot act on Him.

The opposite mode of relation which distinguishes Father from Son is that of the rational principle: Paternity-Filiation.

This leaves the appetitive principle as the remaining opposite mode of relation to distinguish Spirit from Father and Son. The opposite relations here are Spiration-Procession.

Both knowledge and appetite are rooted in being, and it is therefore correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father.

It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.

One must have knowledge of a thing in order to desire it (Bill cannot spirate a desire for Hamburgers, and a desire for Hamburgers cannot proceed from him, if Bill has no conception of what a Hamburger is). For this reason the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Father and the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son collectively, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son.

Can you explain how any of that gobbledegook answers my question? How is The Logos a "mode of relation" as you claim? The "Begotteness" of the Logos is a "mode of relation", but this has not been personified into the Logos. If you recall, you attempted to justify Catholicism's personification of the Love between the Father and the Son into the "Holy Spirit" by paralleling it with an alleged personification of a "mode of relation" into the Logos. You still have failed to do so. Here is what you said:

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

Please prove it.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 08:24:02 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Catholics believe that Sanctifying Grace is created.Orthodox believe that Grace is uncreated and is part of the Divine Energies of God.

If Grace is a participation in the Divine Life of God, then it must be uncreated and part of God's Divine Energies.Through theosis, we are transformed through Grace and become like God, not in God's Essence, but through His Divine Energies.

This is a profound difference.

I am so surprised that you were not taught better than this Maria. It is no wonder you left the Church. You never even got a good chance to know it in reality.

What you have said here is nothing but superficial inaccuracies. It is very unfortunate and a scandal within the Catholic Church that ANYONE would be so poorly taught.

In Maria's defence I have to say that what she describes is what we were taught in the 1960s. When I converted to Orthodoxy and learnt of theosis and uncreated grace it was poles away from what I had been taught, out of Tanquery, etc.

Were Maria and I both taught by heretical Catholics? <gulp>

Who knows and I am not sure why you care since you don't need to bothered with it any longer.

BTW I was taught to look beneath the surface of things like the first, second and third Baltimore by an Irishman from Cork...Tom O'Shea...He seemed to know a great deal more about Trinity and grace than I was learning in my classrooms. Maybe it was because he was from the south. Don't know. But I will admit that without his early direction, and Father Hal of course, I'd not be here doing this.

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

The word 'logos' means 'Principle of order and knowledge' in the Greek of the day.

Since God is one simple divine essence, distinguishing marks within Him are only by opposite modes of relation. For example, the Father has a relation to the Son, and He has a relation to the Spirit. However, He does not have opposite relations to these. If He did, the Father would be two persons, whereas He is one person. He has the same mode of relation to the Son as He has to the Spirit: That both the Son and the Spirit are related to Him as being produced by Him.

Three distinguishing marks characterize any act of production: Efficient cause (that which produces), material cause (the matter out of which the product is produced), and formal term (the form it takes upon production).

The Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from one another by material cause, because they have no matter. Nor are they distinguished from one another by formal term, because they have the same form: The Divine Essence. Therefore, they are distinguished by efficient cause. Both are produced by the Father, so in order to be distinguished by efficient cause one of them must be produced by both the Father and another person of the Trinity.

There are three modes of relation within a living being: The sensible principle, by which matter act upon it, The appetitive principle, by which it is drawn towards its natural good, and the rational principle, by which it produces a similitude in the mind of being (this similitude being knowledge).

God has no sensible principle, because matter cannot act on Him.

The opposite mode of relation which distinguishes Father from Son is that of the rational principle: Paternity-Filiation.

This leaves the appetitive principle as the remaining opposite mode of relation to distinguish Spirit from Father and Son. The opposite relations here are Spiration-Procession.

Both knowledge and appetite are rooted in being, and it is therefore correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father.

It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.

One must have knowledge of a thing in order to desire it (Bill cannot spirate a desire for Hamburgers, and a desire for Hamburgers cannot proceed from him, if Bill has no conception of what a Hamburger is). For this reason the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Father and the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son collectively, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son.

Can you explain how any of that gobbledegook answers my question? How is The Logos a "mode of relation" as you claim? The "Begotteness" of the Logos is a "mode of relation", but this has not been personified into the Logos. If you recall, you attempted to justify Catholicism's personification of the Love between the Father and the Son into the "Holy Spirit" by paralleling it with an alleged personification of a "mode of relation" into the Logos. You still have failed to do so. Here is what you said:

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

Please prove it.

Are you human? Is that part of your personhood? Does that define your relationship with others of your kind? Or is that something off to the side?

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

The word 'logos' means 'Principle of order and knowledge' in the Greek of the day.

Since God is one simple divine essence, distinguishing marks within Him are only by opposite modes of relation. For example, the Father has a relation to the Son, and He has a relation to the Spirit. However, He does not have opposite relations to these. If He did, the Father would be two persons, whereas He is one person. He has the same mode of relation to the Son as He has to the Spirit: That both the Son and the Spirit are related to Him as being produced by Him.

Three distinguishing marks characterize any act of production: Efficient cause (that which produces), material cause (the matter out of which the product is produced), and formal term (the form it takes upon production).

The Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from one another by material cause, because they have no matter. Nor are they distinguished from one another by formal term, because they have the same form: The Divine Essence. Therefore, they are distinguished by efficient cause. Both are produced by the Father, so in order to be distinguished by efficient cause one of them must be produced by both the Father and another person of the Trinity.

There are three modes of relation within a living being: The sensible principle, by which matter act upon it, The appetitive principle, by which it is drawn towards its natural good, and the rational principle, by which it produces a similitude in the mind of being (this similitude being knowledge).

God has no sensible principle, because matter cannot act on Him.

The opposite mode of relation which distinguishes Father from Son is that of the rational principle: Paternity-Filiation.

This leaves the appetitive principle as the remaining opposite mode of relation to distinguish Spirit from Father and Son. The opposite relations here are Spiration-Procession.

Both knowledge and appetite are rooted in being, and it is therefore correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father.

It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.

One must have knowledge of a thing in order to desire it (Bill cannot spirate a desire for Hamburgers, and a desire for Hamburgers cannot proceed from him, if Bill has no conception of what a Hamburger is). For this reason the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Father and the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son collectively, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son.

Can you explain how any of that gobbledegook answers my question? How is The Logos a "mode of relation" as you claim? The "Begotteness" of the Logos is a "mode of relation", but this has not been personified into the Logos. If you recall, you attempted to justify Catholicism's personification of the Love between the Father and the Son into the "Holy Spirit" by paralleling it with an alleged personification of a "mode of relation" into the Logos. You still have failed to do so. Here is what you said:

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

Please prove it.

Are you human? Is that part of your personhood? Does that define your relationship with others of your kind? Or is that something off to the side?

What kind of dualist are you? There's more than one variety.

So now you are reversing it. Rather than a relationship or "mode of relation" being elevated to Personhood, you are elevating Personhood to a mode of relation......You guys do get yourselves into some twists don't you?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

The word 'logos' means 'Principle of order and knowledge' in the Greek of the day.

Since God is one simple divine essence, distinguishing marks within Him are only by opposite modes of relation. For example, the Father has a relation to the Son, and He has a relation to the Spirit. However, He does not have opposite relations to these. If He did, the Father would be two persons, whereas He is one person. He has the same mode of relation to the Son as He has to the Spirit: That both the Son and the Spirit are related to Him as being produced by Him.

Three distinguishing marks characterize any act of production: Efficient cause (that which produces), material cause (the matter out of which the product is produced), and formal term (the form it takes upon production).

The Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from one another by material cause, because they have no matter. Nor are they distinguished from one another by formal term, because they have the same form: The Divine Essence. Therefore, they are distinguished by efficient cause. Both are produced by the Father, so in order to be distinguished by efficient cause one of them must be produced by both the Father and another person of the Trinity.

There are three modes of relation within a living being: The sensible principle, by which matter act upon it, The appetitive principle, by which it is drawn towards its natural good, and the rational principle, by which it produces a similitude in the mind of being (this similitude being knowledge).

God has no sensible principle, because matter cannot act on Him.

The opposite mode of relation which distinguishes Father from Son is that of the rational principle: Paternity-Filiation.

This leaves the appetitive principle as the remaining opposite mode of relation to distinguish Spirit from Father and Son. The opposite relations here are Spiration-Procession.

Both knowledge and appetite are rooted in being, and it is therefore correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father.

It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.

One must have knowledge of a thing in order to desire it (Bill cannot spirate a desire for Hamburgers, and a desire for Hamburgers cannot proceed from him, if Bill has no conception of what a Hamburger is). For this reason the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Father and the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son collectively, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son.

Can you explain how any of that gobbledegook answers my question? How is The Logos a "mode of relation" as you claim? The "Begotteness" of the Logos is a "mode of relation", but this has not been personified into the Logos. If you recall, you attempted to justify Catholicism's personification of the Love between the Father and the Son into the "Holy Spirit" by paralleling it with an alleged personification of a "mode of relation" into the Logos. You still have failed to do so. Here is what you said:

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

Please prove it.

Are you human? Is that part of your personhood? Does that define your relationship with others of your kind? Or is that something off to the side?

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

The word 'logos' means 'Principle of order and knowledge' in the Greek of the day.

Since God is one simple divine essence, distinguishing marks within Him are only by opposite modes of relation. For example, the Father has a relation to the Son, and He has a relation to the Spirit. However, He does not have opposite relations to these. If He did, the Father would be two persons, whereas He is one person. He has the same mode of relation to the Son as He has to the Spirit: That both the Son and the Spirit are related to Him as being produced by Him.

Three distinguishing marks characterize any act of production: Efficient cause (that which produces), material cause (the matter out of which the product is produced), and formal term (the form it takes upon production).

The Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from one another by material cause, because they have no matter. Nor are they distinguished from one another by formal term, because they have the same form: The Divine Essence. Therefore, they are distinguished by efficient cause. Both are produced by the Father, so in order to be distinguished by efficient cause one of them must be produced by both the Father and another person of the Trinity.

There are three modes of relation within a living being: The sensible principle, by which matter act upon it, The appetitive principle, by which it is drawn towards its natural good, and the rational principle, by which it produces a similitude in the mind of being (this similitude being knowledge).

God has no sensible principle, because matter cannot act on Him.

The opposite mode of relation which distinguishes Father from Son is that of the rational principle: Paternity-Filiation.

This leaves the appetitive principle as the remaining opposite mode of relation to distinguish Spirit from Father and Son. The opposite relations here are Spiration-Procession.

Both knowledge and appetite are rooted in being, and it is therefore correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father.

It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.

One must have knowledge of a thing in order to desire it (Bill cannot spirate a desire for Hamburgers, and a desire for Hamburgers cannot proceed from him, if Bill has no conception of what a Hamburger is). For this reason the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Father and the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son collectively, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son.

Can you explain how any of that gobbledegook answers my question? How is The Logos a "mode of relation" as you claim? The "Begotteness" of the Logos is a "mode of relation", but this has not been personified into the Logos. If you recall, you attempted to justify Catholicism's personification of the Love between the Father and the Son into the "Holy Spirit" by paralleling it with an alleged personification of a "mode of relation" into the Logos. You still have failed to do so. Here is what you said:

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

Please prove it.

Are you human? Is that part of your personhood? Does that define your relationship with others of your kind? Or is that something off to the side?

What kind of dualist are you? There's more than one variety.

So now you are reversing it. Rather than a relationship or "mode of relation" being elevated to Personhood, you are elevating Personhood to a mode of relation......You guys do get yourselves into some twists don't you?

That would work IF I had said that your personhood consisted ONLY of your humanity.

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

The word 'logos' means 'Principle of order and knowledge' in the Greek of the day.

Since God is one simple divine essence, distinguishing marks within Him are only by opposite modes of relation. For example, the Father has a relation to the Son, and He has a relation to the Spirit. However, He does not have opposite relations to these. If He did, the Father would be two persons, whereas He is one person. He has the same mode of relation to the Son as He has to the Spirit: That both the Son and the Spirit are related to Him as being produced by Him.

Three distinguishing marks characterize any act of production: Efficient cause (that which produces), material cause (the matter out of which the product is produced), and formal term (the form it takes upon production).

The Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from one another by material cause, because they have no matter. Nor are they distinguished from one another by formal term, because they have the same form: The Divine Essence. Therefore, they are distinguished by efficient cause. Both are produced by the Father, so in order to be distinguished by efficient cause one of them must be produced by both the Father and another person of the Trinity.

There are three modes of relation within a living being: The sensible principle, by which matter act upon it, The appetitive principle, by which it is drawn towards its natural good, and the rational principle, by which it produces a similitude in the mind of being (this similitude being knowledge).

God has no sensible principle, because matter cannot act on Him.

The opposite mode of relation which distinguishes Father from Son is that of the rational principle: Paternity-Filiation.

This leaves the appetitive principle as the remaining opposite mode of relation to distinguish Spirit from Father and Son. The opposite relations here are Spiration-Procession.

Both knowledge and appetite are rooted in being, and it is therefore correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father.

It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.

One must have knowledge of a thing in order to desire it (Bill cannot spirate a desire for Hamburgers, and a desire for Hamburgers cannot proceed from him, if Bill has no conception of what a Hamburger is). For this reason the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Father and the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son collectively, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son.

Can you explain how any of that gobbledegook answers my question? How is The Logos a "mode of relation" as you claim? The "Begotteness" of the Logos is a "mode of relation", but this has not been personified into the Logos. If you recall, you attempted to justify Catholicism's personification of the Love between the Father and the Son into the "Holy Spirit" by paralleling it with an alleged personification of a "mode of relation" into the Logos. You still have failed to do so. Here is what you said:

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

Please prove it.

Are you human? Is that part of your personhood? Does that define your relationship with others of your kind? Or is that something off to the side?

If anyone is interested in a long read, this rather lengthy paper is interesting and lays out the history of the filioque dispute impartially, sets forth the Greek and Latin theological perspectives on the issue, addresses issues of common understanding, and most importantly, draws out the still real distinctions and divisions between the positions of the Orthodox and the Latin Churches on this matter. "The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue? An Agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul's College, Washington, d.c. October, 2003"http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

I won't quote mine or extract any portions of this as the entire paper needs to be read and digested. On the whole, I read it as being more accepting of the Eastern position but... While it certainly isn't as much 'fun' as a polemic-filled back and forth online, the conclusions are interesting, but remain unaddressed nearly ten years later by any in authority, particularly from the Roman side.

If anyone is interested in a long read, this rather lengthy paper is interesting and lays out the history of the filioque dispute impartially, sets forth the Greek and Latin theological perspectives on the issue, addresses issues of common understanding, and most importantly, draws out the still real distinctions and divisions between the positions of the Orthodox and the Latin Churches on this matter. "The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue? An Agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul's College, Washington, d.c. October, 2003"http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

'The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible. We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.'

and also from Saint John of Damascus:

"We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."

The Orthodox know only within the limits of Scripture and Tradition. Both of these affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. This is what we know with crystal clear clarity.

'The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible. We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.'

and also from Saint John of Damascus:

"We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."

I seriously doubt that either of those quotes can be reconciled with Aquinas' thought. (Not that I in any way want to discount the fact that we share many saints, but I think we need to be careful to avoid syncretism.)

"The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue?" has a short, but to-the-point, description of Aquinas' thinking on the filioque:

Quote

The Greek and Latin theological traditions clearly remain in some tension with each other on the fundamental issue of the Spirit’s eternal origin as a distinct divine person. By the Middle Ages, as a result of the influence of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, Western theology almost universally conceives of the identity of each divine person as defined by its “relations of opposition” – in other words, its mutually defining relations of origin - to the other two, and concludes that the Holy Spirit would not be hypostatically distinguishable from the Son if the Spirit “proceeded” from the Father alone. In the Latin understanding of processio as a general term for “origin,” after all, it can also be said that the Son “proceeds from the Father” by being generated from him. Eastern theology, drawing on the language of John 15.26 and the Creed of 381, continues to understand the language of “procession” (ekporeusis) as de-not-ing a unique, exclusive, and distinc-tive causal relationship between the Spirit and the Father, and generally confines the Son’s role to the “manifestation” and “mission” of the Spirit in the divine activities of crea-tion and redemption. These differences, though subtle, are substantial, and the very weight of theological tradition behind both of them makes them all the more difficult to reconcile theologically with each other.

'The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible. We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.'

and also from Saint John of Damascus:

"We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."

I seriously doubt that either of those quotes can be reconciled with Aquinas' thought. (Not that I in any way want to discount the fact that we share many saints, but I think we need to be careful to avoid syncretism.)

If we have a Saint-theologian shared by both our Churches and then we have a Saint venerated only in one of them --- my country-boy wisdom says we should pay more attention to the Saint we share. He points to our true unity.

'The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible. We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.'

and also from Saint John of Damascus:

"We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."

I seriously doubt that either of those quotes can be reconciled with Aquinas' thought. (Not that I in any way want to discount the fact that we share many saints, but I think we need to be careful to avoid syncretism.)

If we have a Saint-theologian shared by both our Churches and then we have a Saint venerated only in one of them --- my country-boy wisdom says we should pay more attention to the Saint we share. He points to our true unity.

To be honest, the more I study the issues, the less I'm inclined to think that our churches are close to re-union.

'The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible. We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.'

and also from Saint John of Damascus:

"We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."

I seriously doubt that either of those quotes can be reconciled with Aquinas' thought. (Not that I in any way want to discount the fact that we share many saints, but I think we need to be careful to avoid syncretism.)

If we have a Saint-theologian shared by both our Churches and then we have a Saint venerated only in one of them --- my country-boy wisdom says we should pay more attention to the Saint we share. He points to our true unity.

To be honest, the more I study the issues, the less I'm inclined to think that our churches are close to re-union.

My uneducated opinion is that if we ever agree on the theological disputes it will be two rather pragmatic things which will prevent union. The Orthodox will never give up their traditional right to divorce and a sacramental second marriage nor will they accept that non-abortive contraception is among the grievous sins which can send a man and woman to hell.